Jump to content


Perfecting Preferential Premiums


  • Please log in to reply
4252 replies to this topic

iKnewIT #3081 Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 75515 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostDeep_Convection, on 01 June 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

There is a solution to preferential matchmaking tanks.  What you proposed is not it.  The solution is to reverse the 3-5-7 matchmaking template.  Instead of putting tanks in 3-5-7 matches first, put them in 3-5-7 matches last.  Then have the MM put regular tanks in 5-10 games as first preference, same tier as second preference, with 3-5-7 being last.  Preferential tanks should have same tier battles as first preference and 5-10 games as second preference.

 

This fixes pref MM premiums without having to painstakingly alter every single pref MM tank in the game.  This not only fixes pref MM premiums, it fixes the game's balance and MM for every other tank in the game too.

 

I do not know who first said it.

Maybe he/she is a very good man or woman, good father, mother, son or daughter, perfect player and outstanding streamer who has a big influence to the community.

I think he said it only because he likes 5/10 more than 3/5/7 and one level battles from current templates, as most of us do.

 

But I have bad news for You.

Such switching of the order of current templates would change almost nothing in MM, and would be even worse for PMM tanks.

 

You may ask WHY?

I don't know which answer could be more acceptable for You, so I'll give some of them.

Enjoy.

 

A.

View PostiKnewIT, on 27 May 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

Read it and think a little bit (I hope You will see only arguments here, nothing more):

1. -2/+2 levels MM rule was in this game from the very beginning. Right? It was sometimes annoying, especialy for newcomers who were trying to shoot at front of Maus in 400m with auto-aim, but never, I repeat, NEVER was the big problem for most of us until patch 9.18. Right?

2. All problems with MM we have now we got with patch 9.18. And... the only thing was changed then in MM... was implementing of template's system. Right?

 

I do not say that -2/+2 levels MM is very good.

I only try to say that the core of real MM problems is the template's system and, especially, 3/5/7 template.

 

So I see only two ways for "repairing" of MM:

1. Removing template's system;

2. Rethinking/changing of numbers in the current templates.

Mine thoughts about changing of templates is in the first page, here:http://forum.worldof...4#entry15772454

 

I hope no one will say I'm whining.... ;)

 

p. s. (for WoT developers) I hope You understand some of us are writing here because we like Your game and want it to became better.... We want You to have some more happy customers. ;):P

 

B.

View PostiKnewIT, on 30 May 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

Nope, nope and one more time nope.

3/5/7 is not equal to -2/+2 and 5/10 is not equal to -1/+1.

Templates' system is not equal to differences in tanks' tiers in a battle.

It's different things.

 

With 5/10 You will be in the bottom of a list the same amount times as with 3/5/7.

I showed it to You.....

http://forum.worldof...8#entry15813178

The only difference is You won't see these 3 +2 tier vehicles some times

But to be clear if it's a big difference playing with CDC or Love if You see 2 Type 4s, 1 Type 4 and 1 Type 5 or 2 Type 5s in front of You?

 

Besides, I'm talking about old MM before 9.18 if You remember it.

It was without templates and -2/+2 tier battles was quite fun then. I mean being -2 tier too.

 

And one more thing for You.

I hope it will be understandable.

More highest tier tanks per battle (or in templates; with or without templates) in 2 and 3 levels battles means You will be more times on top of a battle list.

 

5/10 is worse for PMM even then 3/5/7 because You would clearly get -1/+1 instead of -2 (rarely ;) )/+1.

You will see more tier 9 5/10 battles in this case and won't see 3/5/7 tier 9 and tier 8 battles at all.

 

I understand Your wish not to see more than 5 higher tier tanks than Your tank's tier and not more than +1 tier tanks in battles.

But it means very very very bad MM system.

5/10 with -1/+1 is better than 3/5/7 with -2/+2 only in one thing - You will have only +1 tier tanks in battles.

But the whole other evil of templates' system with too little amount of top tier tanks per battle will remain the same.

http://forum.worldof...4#entry15772454

 

C.

View PostiKnewIT, on 31 May 2018 - 07:07 PM, said:

O'K, I'll try to say it easy and w/o numbers, if it will be possible.

I don't need answers from You, but give them to Yourself.

 

1. When was it the first time You really got pi..is..ed of with MM?

Me after 9.18, when there on top of old good simple -2/+2 MM was implemented system of 357/510/onelevel templates. I even found this forum because of these changes.

 

Only because of this system of templates (not because of -2/+2 tier battles) we have/had these problems (some of them was fixed, but because of these fixes there was new problems, if You remember):

a. No platoons on top (fixed it seems);

b. One level tier 10 battles (so called tier 12 battles; not fixed, because it can't be fixed with current templates, but it's done 30vs30 mode and there are bonds given to lower sh..it... load because of them);

c. Being much more times in the end of battle list than on the top of it in 2 and 3 levels battles (it's simple mathematics if You don't care about differences in amounts of different tier tanks, calculations is still here: http://forum.worldof...8#entry15813178

d. So called Turbo battles (3-4 min duration battles and/or 15/0-5 battles)

e. PMM tanks problems (Current theme, You know; not fixed; they become unplayable, look at c.; and with changing of -2/+2 to -1/+1 with current templates they would become even more unplayable, as I wrote here: http://forum.worldof...1#entry15815211

but I will paste this text here too: Besides, 5/10 is worse for PMM even then 3/5/7 because You would clearly get -1/+1 instead of -2 (rarely)/+1. You will get even more tier 9 5/10 battles then. You wouldn't get 3/5/7 tier 9 and tier 8 battles at all.)

f. Some more minor issues which maybe are not important for all of us.

 

2. I don't know how to ask this question... Let's try... How can changing of -2/+2 heal system of templates? Nope, bad one... 2nd edition... Why do You think that changing of healthy part of MM can heal ill one? Bad too... But I can't formulate it better...

 

p. s. Sorry, but I'll repeat this sentence to be seen and understood (I hope). It doesn't matter if You like it or not. It's mathematics...

More highest tier tanks per battle (or in templates; with or without templates) in 2 and 3 levels battles means You will be more times on top of a battle list.

 

Yep, I know, I'm only a regular player, I'm not an outstanding streamer, but I hope to be heard.... :(

 

View PostGrand_Moff_Tano, 

WOULD YOU PLEASE DISCUS WITH ME TOO?

I NEED A LITTLE BIT HELP. ;)

 


Edited by iKnewIT, 25 June 2018 - 01:49 PM.


Badz360 #3082 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:23 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15196 battles
  • 150
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015

If you can code this game from scratch (collectively) - coding an algorithm that can optimise MM should not be such a difficult task. Let it be more fluent - and instead of sticking to a strict hierarchy for types of battles to try in a rigid sequence - let it look at the queue overall and decide which would be the best solution given the current make-up of tanks within the queue.

 

PMM’s make up a tiny percentage of tanks in the queue (according to vbaddict), and to say 1 PMM affects 29 other tanks so has an exponential influence is a misnomer, as it’s rare to see a single PMM in a match - as they ‘seem’ to be grouped together within a match-ups.

 

Given how efficiently a good algorithm could handle this - let’s call out what is really happening. WG are trying to push through the most ‘profitable’ solution no matter how it affects gameplay, but worse are lying to our faces about the reasons for the changes - taking us for spoon-fed idiots and forgetting that comprehensive stats are available from sites like vbaddict.



OSBTrebek #3083 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:26 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10566 battles
  • 68
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-24-2013

View PostDeep_Convection, on 01 June 2018 - 01:44 AM, said:

 

Right now pref MM tanks get into 5-10 battles first and are usually bottom tier in those matches.  The solution to this, while keeping their pref MM status, is to have the MM prioritize same tier battles first.  Then 5-10 battles second.  There are some pref MM tanks that have been power crept and will naturally need minor adjustments regardless.  The proposed solution is not only the solution to this pref MM tank debacle, it's the solution to the matchmaker and balance itself.

 

If we want to entertain the lies of wargaming about the source of the problem then the other obvious fix is to adjust Pref. MM tanks to have a +0/-1 spread.  Boom, no more problem with their idiotic 'using up all the tier IXs to wreck the play experience of these tanks'.  Given how power creeped new Tier VIII premiums are, they will already have their work cut out for them penning a defender or bouncing a skorpion G.

iKnewIT #3084 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 75515 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostBadz360, on 01 June 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

If you can code this game from scratch (collectively) - coding an algorithm that can optimise MM should not be such a difficult task. Let it be more fluent - and instead of sticking to a strict hierarchy for types of battles to try in a rigid sequence - let it look at the queue overall and decide which would be the best solution given the current make-up of tanks within the queue.

 

PMM’s make up a tiny percentage of tanks in the queue (according to vbaddict), and to say 1 PMM affects 29 other tanks so has an exponential influence is a misnomer, as it’s rare to see a single PMM in a match - as they ‘seem’ to be grouped together within a match-ups.

 

Given how efficiently a good algorithm could handle this - let’s call out what is really happening. WG are trying to push through the most ‘profitable’ solution no matter how it affects gameplay, but worse are lying to our faces about the reasons for the changes - taking us for spoon-fed idiots and forgetting that comprehensive stats are available from sites like vbaddict.

 

I'm not a programmer, but I think it can't be done with ANY templates' system because of differences of amounts of different tier tanks in some time and overall.

http://forum.worldof...4#entry15817794

 


Edited by iKnewIT, 01 June 2018 - 12:32 PM.


sefhyro #3085 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:40 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22509 battles
  • 389
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

So i want to see if any of the devs actually have the balls answering this...

 

will there be other options given to players that have preferential mm tanks of any tier ???

 

for example -the chance for a full wen bought refund? 

 

and i`m not talking of be given the valu of the tank in gold whit wg discount in half....

 

or does wg intent into maintain what was writen by them saying the only possible trade is for another premium tank(s)  plus up to 2000 gold on the trade in of the tanks

 

that players currently own that  will suffer the nerf... (and yes its a nerf, that these tanks whit preferential mm will suffer) ???

 

come on devs i dare you answer these whiout playing around the bush or liyng....

 

ohhhh and on a footnote, devs hiding forums replies of players, who do you think you`re folling!!!

 

i`m still here waiting for a answer, are you devs going to take long??? 

or do you want me to keep this up???



iKnewIT #3086 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 75515 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostOSBTrebek, on 01 June 2018 - 10:26 AM, said:

 

If we want to entertain the lies of wargaming about the source of the problem then the other obvious fix is to adjust Pref. MM tanks to have a +0/-1 spread.  Boom, no more problem with their idiotic 'using up all the tier IXs to wreck the play experience of these tanks'.  Given how power creeped new Tier VIII premiums are, they will already have their work cut out for them penning a defender or bouncing a skorpion G.

 

In that case You would have many many many tier 8 one level battles and very few tier 8 5/10 battles (because of difference of amount of tier 8 and tier 7 vehicles players are using).

http://forum.worldof...4#entry15817794

So, why not to heal the main problem of MM and do not revert it back to that which was in 9.17?

 


Edited by iKnewIT, 01 June 2018 - 09:46 AM.


Gremlin182 #3087 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:53 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 52614 battles
  • 8,653
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

Thanks iKnewIT I think I got most of that well the gist of it anyway.

 

I don't mind +2 because in the past there was a rotation I was in every position in the team and if it wasn't always an equal number of games in top middle bottom position it was close enough.

 

Some complained about the old system one of the 2 main comments were player skill I felt this was an important factor and still is.

Even assuming there are some good players in both teams if one side has those players in their top tiers and the other has them in lower tiers its not great.

 

The other problem one which WG tried to fix was all tanks of the same tier not being equal the fix was to try to match tanks by their role rather than type.

WG want to keep randoms random which is fair enough so they do not want to balance teams by player ability again fair enough.

 

What we do need is a system that over time balance out, the original MM actually did that, I logged well over 3500 games and it all evened out.

In attempting to make the tanks equal and match them by role we seem to have broken that balance.

 

 



Max_Calibre #3088 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21159 battles
  • 1,084
  • [T-OG] T-OG
  • Member since:
    02-03-2014

Sneaking belief that WG balance developers have engineered over the last year since the implementation of template 3-5-7 MM that PMM tanks are deliberately

given poor MM selection so as owners of PMM tanks get fed up then piss*d off playing there PMM tanks so players eventually stop using them

 

~ thus when WG balance developers announce in a happy jolly tone of voice - were your mates we have a fantastic fix for PMM its called "Perfecting Preferential Premiums"

and happy oh so happy news for you tank boys the old creaky KV5 is the first Pathfinder to greatness with many 'buffs' to become a REGULAR Tier 8 tank easily able

to battle those pesky Tier 10's 

 

of course inevitably WG balance team forgot (conveniently) two crucially important things this as per usual for WG

 

1 ~ we paid CASH MONEY for any PMM tanks we bought not with useless WG digital pixel GOLD 

(and a great many players December 2017 bought a lot of XMAS BOXES for CASH to win there PMM Tier 8 Type 59 and other PMM tanks

those Xmas boxes were not cheap, some bought a lot of expensive Xmas boxes.

 

2 ~ 10s of 1000's of players bought there PMM tanks over the years BECOUSE there Preferential with only +1 MM - for many it was the ONLY reason to get there Credit Cards out

 

for us WOT players its a cold hard CASH problem we paid WG for something with real MONEY

 

 



BodyGuardOfLies #3089 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:50 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 88905 battles
  • 1,157
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

Well wargaming it looks like the majority want to see the tier spread scrapped.

 

You shot yourselves in the foot with Frontline. Now that the player base has experienced no tier spread and enjoyed it lets see you put that genie back in the bottle.   

 

View PostGremlin182, on 01 June 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

 

Some complained about the old system one of the 2 main comments were player skill I felt this was an important factor and still is.

Even assuming there are some good players in both teams if one side has those players in their top tiers and the other has them in lower tiers its not great.

 

 

You make a good point. If teams were all the same tier it would reduce the effects of player ability imbalance in match making. 

 

It would not matter that their good players were at the top of the list and your's at the bottom if you are all in tier 8's for instance. 

 


 

iKnewIT #3090 Posted 01 June 2018 - 11:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 75515 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostBodyGuardOfLies, on 01 June 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

Well wargaming it looks like the majority want to see the tier spread scrapped.

You shot yourselves in the foot with Frontline. Now that the player base has experienced no tier spread and enjoyed it lets see you put that genie back in the bottle.   

 

Look widely, be wiser. ;)

You know, this thread is about.... PMM tanks, so..

This Your proposition is even worse than suggestions to take 5/10 on top of the list of templates or -1/+0 instead of -2/+1 with the current system of templates for PMM tanks.

 

You know, You may say that I'm talking not about PMM tanks in most of mine posts, but... I do not see real solution to "heal" MM of PMM tanks other than to "heal" all MM itself. That's why I do so.


Edited by iKnewIT, 01 June 2018 - 12:35 PM.


tenshox #3091 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:02 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8706 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011
The silence ist deafening.

WoT_RU_Doing #3092 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:03 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 52386 battles
  • 2,466
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

WG...any update since Phelan's post on 25 April (http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/674251-special-xp-fever/page__st__40#topmost)...

"Hey guys,

 

Yes, the preferential match making premiums are something we are looking at right now. The “Perfecting Preferential Premiums” article gave you an idea about how we are planning to change them so they fit in better with the current match maker and meta. However, the reactions to that article also showed that we are not entirely there yet and we have some more thinking to do to find the solution both in terms of balance and in the way we want to make the current owners of these vehicles happy. We will share more info about this as soon as possible.


In the meantime some preferential match making tanks, like the IS-6, Jagdtiger 8,8 and the SuperPershing, are still on sale. People can still enjoy playing these machines if they decide to buy them right now. Whatever the final decision is about changing these tanks, we will make sure that the owners will either:


- have a machine that they can be happy with if they keep the tank after the changes  
- or they will have a chance to exchange it for something of equal (or higher) value


Until that point you can still have fun with the vehicle, train your crews and farm some nice credits."



torloisk #3093 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 31251 battles
  • 157
  • [SHOR] SHOR
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013
WG is ignoring the customers, keep your wallet closed

iKnewIT #3094 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 75515 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 01 June 2018 - 01:03 PM, said:

WG...any update since Phelan's post on 25 April (http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/674251-special-xp-fever/page__st__40#topmost)...

"Hey guys,

 

Yes, the preferential match making premiums are something we are looking at right now. The “Perfecting Preferential Premiums” article gave you an idea about how we are planning to change them so they fit in better with the current match maker and meta. However, the reactions to that article also showed that we are not entirely there yet and we have some more thinking to do to find the solution both in terms of balance and in the way we want to make the current owners of these vehicles happy. We will share more info about this as soon as possible.


In the meantime some preferential match making tanks, like the IS-6, Jagdtiger 8,8 and the SuperPershing, are still on sale. People can still enjoy playing these machines if they decide to buy them right now. Whatever the final decision is about changing these tanks, we will make sure that the owners will either:


- have a machine that they can be happy with if they keep the tank after the changes  
- or they will have a chance to exchange it for something of equal (or higher) value


Until that point you can still have fun with the vehicle, train your crews and farm some nice credits."

 

Sh1t.....

I haven't pay attention to these words I've read this post it for the first time... :(

Don't they still understand that reverting MM to that which was in 9.17 would the best and easiest solution for PMM and all other tanks players?

Or they still want to "Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance"?


Edited by iKnewIT, 01 June 2018 - 12:28 PM.


Insert_Insult #3095 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8260 battles
  • 602
  • Member since:
    06-06-2012

11.3 With respect to virtual goods that are purchased by you, we shall be liable in addition to article 2 of the present section 11 for damages that arise from the lack of a guaranteed characteristic or gross negligence of us, our representatives, or designated agents.

 

from their own EULA. 

 

 



fredo_k #3096 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:31 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31444 battles
  • 252
  • Member since:
    12-30-2012
What you don’t understand is that i want an option to get my money back

sefhyro #3097 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:38 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22509 battles
  • 389
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

so i`m amazed that on the NA server the first thing they do wen talking about perfecting prefrential mm... the first thing they do is adress the post made by wg in the first place saying and i quote

 

"As many of you have already noticed, an article was posted today covering some upcoming  preliminary changes to the KV-5, along with some guidelines of what we are planning for the future of tanks with preferential matchmaking.  A particular section of the article has been (fairly) causing some consternation, and we would like to address it."

 

but this is not the end of it...

 

"Your reactions to this news have largely been negative and I completely understand - something you purchased is being changed and you are being told your primary alternative if you don't like it is to spend more gold.  Intentions here were noble"

 

yeah right, and i am pope Francis...

 

 

View PostInsert_Insult, on 01 June 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

11.3 With respect to virtual goods that are purchased by you, we shall be liable in addition to article 2 of the present section 11 for damages that arise from the lack of a guaranteed characteristic or gross negligence of us, our representatives, or designated agents.

 

from their own EULA. 

 

 

 

did you know that they change that line wen you agree to purchase a ingame item from the shop on the NA server?

 

at least i have readed here a post made by another player , i cant pinpoint the page or, confirm if that same post was edited or deleted, but they did mention that wen you`re purchasing a new tank the new clause in the buying contract states that its they`re virtual property and they will make changes has they see fit, and this hapens after you realize the purchase , and this only shows after the purchase has been made...


 

Mr_Burrows #3098 Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:30 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47166 battles
  • 2,117
  • [D-NUT] D-NUT
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

View Postsefhyro, on 01 June 2018 - 12:38 PM, said:

so i`m amazed that on the NA server the first thing they do wen talking about perfecting prefrential mm... the first thing they do is adress the post made by wg in the first place saying and i quote

 

"As many of you have already noticed, an article was posted today covering some upcoming  preliminary changes to the KV-5, along with some guidelines of what we are planning for the future of tanks with preferential matchmaking.  A particular section of the article has been (fairly) causing some consternation, and we would like to address it."

 

but this is not the end of it...

 

"Your reactions to this news have largely been negative and I completely understand - something you purchased is being changed and you are being told your primary alternative if you don't like it is to spend more gold.  Intentions here were noble"

 

yeah right, and i am pope Francis...

 

 

"Noble" as in "gold"... 

sefhyro #3099 Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22509 battles
  • 389
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View PostMr_Burrows, on 01 June 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

 

"Noble" as in "gold"... 

 

here you can read it and take you`re own conclusions im not puting words in you`re mouth or changing you`re thoghts... 

 

http://forum.worldof...es-on-trade-in/

 



Deep_Convection #3100 Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:55 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1217 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    12-26-2015

View PostiKnewIT, on 01 June 2018 - 07:41 AM, said:

 

I do not know who first said it.

Maybe he/she is a very good man or woman, good father, mother, son or daughter, perfect player and outstanding streamer who has a big influence to the community.

I think he said it only because he likes 5/10 more than 3/5/7 and one level battles from current templates, as we all do.

 

But I have bad news for You.

Such switching of the order of current templates would change almost nothing in MM, and would be even worse for PMM tanks.

 

You may ask WHY?

I don't know which answer could be more acceptable for You, so I'll give some of them.

Enjoy.

 

A.

 

B.

 

C.

 

Yep, I know, I'm only a regular player, I'm not an outstanding streamer, but I hope to be heard.... :(

 

 

 

Not seeing the reasoning anywhere in your post.  Putting 3-5-7 matches last and 5-10/same tier battles first would significantly improve the game's MM.
 

View PostOSBTrebek, on 01 June 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

 

If we want to entertain the lies of wargaming about the source of the problem then the other obvious fix is to adjust Pref. MM tanks to have a +0/-1 spread.  Boom, no more problem with their idiotic 'using up all the tier IXs to wreck the play experience of these tanks'.  Given how power creeped new Tier VIII premiums are, they will already have their work cut out for them penning a defender or bouncing a skorpion G.

 

That wouldn't work very well.  Queue times would rise significantly for pref MM tanks.  The PZ B2 already has that +0/-1 matchmaking.  I have that tank on both my NA and EU accounts.  It has a tough time getting into matches quickly, and during off hours you sometimes can't even get games without waiting over 5 minutes.  +0/-1 is not a solution.

 


 




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users